Bruce A. Broillet

A case that netted client Tomislav George $12 million from a Los Angeles jury in March presented Broillet with challenges. Both George, the passenger, and the man behind the wheel had been drinking at an Irish bar on St. Patrick’s Day. “Both ended up intoxicated,” Broillet said. “My client, who sustained an arm injury so bad it was barely short of amputation, was a little above the legal limit.” The driver, an employee of a property management company, was at two and a half times the DUI limit.

“This was a very hard sell,” Broillet said. “They’d gone drinking before as friends. I had to prove their time at the bar prior to the crash was business-related and thus within the scope of the driver’s employment.” George v. First Service Residential LLC, BC534796 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 30, 2014).

Broillet learned that the driver, Lance Sandman, was the property manager for a Pasadena condominium complex. George was on the condo’s homeowners’ association board. Sandman allegedly took George drinking at the bar to scout ideas for a St. Patrick’s Day party for residents. Sandman’s employer contended it was a social meeting unrelated to business.

Digging deeper into the facts, Broillet found that the property management company had praised its employee, Sandman, for coming up with great party ideas and encouraged him to befriend tenants. Plus, Sandman had been convicted of DUI six months after being hired and had not told his employer. Broillet produced evidence that Sandman should have been registered in a Department of Motor Vehicles program before the date of the accident which would have alerted the employer to the DUI and resulted in either termination or restricted driving privileges.

“Sandman’s job description included driving,” Broillet said. “He did give the DMV authorization to report his record to employers. But he did not sign the paperwork, so the employer was at fault for accepting his word. And the company had a no tolerance policy for alcohol except ‘in moderation’ at company-sponsored events.”

At trial, Broillet got the company’s human resources witness to acknowledge that the policy was ambiguous. “Everyone thinks he’s drinking in moderation,” Broillet said. “Some of our evidence was pretty powerful. I got a key person to admit the company dropped the ball.”

Jurors returned a $15 million verdict, but the final number was $12 million due to a 20 percent comparative fault finding attributed to Broillet’s client. “That was consistent with what we had recommended,” Broillet said.

— John Roemer